GamePolitics reports on H.R. 4204, or Violence in Video Games Labeling Act, new legislation being proposed in the U.S. by Congressmen Joe Baca (D-Calif.) and Frank Wolf (R-Va.). This follows up on Blanca's plan for such a bill first mentioned over a year ago to label video games with the following warning: "WARNING: Exposure to violent video games has been linked to aggressive behavior." Baca failed at attempts to pass such bills in in 2003 and in 2009, and presumably thinks the third time will be the charm. Here's the text of bill:

To require certain warning labels to be placed on video games that are given certain ratings due to violent content.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION REGULATION.

a) REGULATION.—Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Consumer Product Safety Commission shall promulgate regulations to require the warning label described in subsection (b) to be placed on the packaging of any video game that is rated ‘‘E’’ (Everyone), ‘‘Everyone 10+’’ (Everyone 10 and older), ‘‘T’’ (Teen), ‘‘M’’ (Mature), or ‘‘A’’ (Adult) by the Entertainment Software Ratings Board.

(b) WARNING LABEL CONTENT.—The warning label required under a regulation issued under subsection (a) shall be placed in a clear and conspicuous location on the packaging of the applicable video game and shall state: ‘‘WARNING: Exposure to violent video games has been linked to aggressive behavior.’’.

(c) VIDEO GAME DEFINED.—As used in this Act, the term ‘‘video game’’ means any product, whether distributed electronically or through a tangible device, consisting of data, programs, routines, instructions, applications, symbolic languages, or similar electronic information (collectively referred to as ‘‘software’’) that controls the operation of a computer or telecommunication device and that enables a user to interact with a computer controlled virtual environment for entertainment purposes.

RollinThundr wrote on Mar 21, 2012, 08:30:"By the time his fiscal year 2013 spending has fully gone into effect, Obama will have added a full $5.823 trillion to the debt," he said. "Obama cannot blame his predecessors. By his policies alone ... Obama will have increased the national debt by 46.9 percent by the end of calendar year 2012."

But hey It's Bush's fault, the same ol song and dance we've had for the Obmessiah's entire term.

The main source of problems driving up the debt is the refusal of Republicans to roll back the Bush era tax cuts. These are tax cuts that impact only the most rich and have driven the tax base to be so enemic it's the lowest it's been in years. This activity is what led to the rise of the Occupy movement. The middle class are sick of the rich getting a free ride off their backs. What I find most ironic is Republicans have made a Christ Head out of Regan. Regan RAISED taxes on the rich. These taxes are FAR lower than taxes on any regime prior including Regan and Bush Sr. Jr's decimation of the tax base, the refusal due to intransigence in the house to repair this damage and the continued cost of two wars one of which was entirely unnecisary and undermined the efforts to stabalize the region is continuing to be paid. So yeah, you know what? Obama is not perfect but you can't fix the dog's breakfast left behind by a corrupt olligarch and his puppet president henchman in three years. If it was so easy how would you do it? Why don't you run for president and 'fix things' honestly arm chair politicians are more annoying than arm chair quarterbacks.

Yes taxing the rich more when they pay the majority of taxes already is the answer, rather than cutting down on spending ourselves into oblivion that will STILL happen regardless if you tax the rich more or not, the massive spending is the issue regardless which party does it, that is the core of the problem. So lets see, so far in this thread we've had the classic Blame Bush, Blame the rich, the race card can't be far behind I'm sure.